February 23, 2011

Where's the outcry? Probably hanging out with the outcry from the Freedom From Religion Foundation over the Reverend Jesse Jackson leading a prayer (with the crowd of protesters in the Wisconsin Capitol rotunda):

(By the way, Jackson's prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause, and in fact, he has a free speech right to do what you see in that video. That is my official professorial opinion.)

Where's the outcry? Probably hanging out with the outcry from the Freedom From Religion Foundation over the Reverend Jesse Jackson leading a prayer (with the crowd of protesters in the Wisconsin Capitol rotunda):

It's nice to know that at least one lawprof agrees that, in a traditionally open public forum, one can speak publicly even in a religious idiom. Just one more proof of the exceptional nature of freedom in America.

Those white supremacists in Madison are just like blacks in the Jim Crow south!

Hallelujah!

Now we know why Rev. Jackson, and that other guy appear on Fox so much. I don't hear the Rev. Jackson complaining about being a token person of color on that network. He probably glories in it. Aren't there others to speak for the African-American community?

Can the rest of the country draw conclusions about a group that votes en masse for a particular candidate or party?

What do camel brats taste like? Are they one more thing that tastes like chicken? Or do they taste like venison?

White people praying in a government building = Gasp! A sign of impending theocracy. Black people praying in a government building = How colorful! Maybe they'll sing some gospel songs for us when they're done!

A religious leader with wisdom will someday be in a similar position, and will look out to the diverse crowd and say, “I’d like to invoke a prayer to God. To those of you who don’t believe in God, please bare with us who do.”

That would give someone like me a chance to likewise exercise grace and tolerance by saying, “Not at all. I’ll stand respectfully by for you.” Which I do anyway in such situations, although it’s not acknowledged.

Jesse’s prayer thoughtfully asks God to “keep us humble.” Recognizing that there are people who might have different but equally strong feelings about religion would be a good start.

Don't disturb PETA. They're deep into the intricate politico-moral calculus of determining whether a nice frothy outrage over a camel is worth harming the reputation of such a reliable and valuable friend as Jon Stewart.

It would be so much easier for PETA if Glenn Beck had been this stupid...

By the way, Jackson's prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause, and in fact, he has a free speech right to do what you see in that video.

Well, duh. He's a private citizen. Since when does the Constitution regulate private citizens?

Establishment clause jurisprudence often strikes me as bizarre. Finding speech wounds and hurt feelings and metaphysical pain. "Your penny hurts me with its God word on it." Your typical establishment clause case has no fucking injury at all. There is no standing. Why do you have standing, you atheist onlooker?

Like Roe v. Wade, which resolved that a woman with a two year old daughter had a constitutional right to retroactively abort her child in a hypothetical universe, the Court often has to violate its own standing rules in order to hear an establishment clause case that it so desperately wants to rule on.

This is why many atheists feel they can sue any old time that feel bad about whatever speech wound caused their brain to bleed. "A religious person is in a government building! Lawsuit, lawsuit, he must be stopped!"

It is no coincidence, I think, that the Court's worst cases, its most illogical and even vile work, first involve a violation of Article III. (That would be the part of the Constitution that is supposed to keep the judiciary in line).